Patrick McHenry Joins The Birthers
Tweet
Yet another Republican elected official joins the fringe.
UPDATE: McHenry backpedals a bit, but its worth noting what his gut inclination was to do.
75 Responses to “Patrick McHenry Joins The Birthers”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The first comment by McHenry was no different than Hillary’s “As far as I know”, he’s not a Muslim, comment. The second was his clarification.
Late Update: McHenry’s office has given this statement to Greg Sargent, backtracking and seeming to affirm that yes, Obama is an American:
“As I stated last night, I have not carefully reviewed the evidence as a jurist would. However, from what I have read, I have absolutely no reason to question President Obama’s citizenship. I anticipate that as a legal matter the courts will continue to come to the same conclusion.”
Meanwhile, you have Hillary in Nigeria bashing America and spouting nonsense with more ‘Bush stole the election in 2000′ nuttiness that The Left largely ignores.
Jesus, Dennis. It’s the same old shit with you.
Defend the right, attack the left, then call every liberal in America a hypocrite.
Yawn.
“Want to go on a date?”-Patrick McHenry to Orly Taitz
fafaroo-
His original statement was no indication that he was joining the fringe anything, fafaroo. His retraction was confirmation that he definitely hadn’t joined the fringe. The headline above states the opposite of reality, now doesn’t it. Meanwhile, our esteemed Secretary of State is spouting far nuttier conspiracy theories from nine years ago and it’s disgraceful and harmful to this nation’s reputation; the exact opposite of what her role is supposed to be. She’s acting like a partisan hack.
Go ahead and yawn, but it’s true.
His original statement was no indication that he was joining the fringe anything
That’s a purely subjective call.
His retraction was confirmation that he definitely hadn’t joined the fringe.
Again, purely subjective. I see plenty of weasel room in that statement.
She’s acting like a partisan hack.
This from a guy who lied about the health care reform bill?
Come on, Dennis. Get a new hat, a new rabbit or something. Your act is tired.
Everything here is subjective, fafaroo. Welcome to the wonderful world of political blogs.
Everything here is subjective, fafaroo.
No it isn’t, Dennis. Not everything. Take the health care reform bill for instance. There’s pretty plain and clear language in section 1322 explaining advanced care consultations. And yet you felt the need to distort that language to include the possible killing of elderly patients.
That would be an instance of when you strayed from your usual practice of engaging in purely subjective tit for tat and wandered into the world of facts.
And yours were all wrong.
There are at least five other new posts this morning you could have cut and pasted “B-b-b-b-but what about Hilary?!?!?!?”
But you chose this one, I suspect, because it wasn’t related to health care, and it easily offered the most subjective of topics.
So Dennis, like I said, your act is tired. Worn out. Sad.
That’s a highly subjective assessment, fafaroo. If you thought it were true, how do you explain your stepped up attacks on my posts? You can go back and count them, but I’m guessing you’ve already responded to about six or seven, and if you thought they were so boring, tired and worn out, there must be something to them that is catching your attention, like flames to a pyromaniac.
You seem to be the resident e-psychiatrist here. Maybe you can explain the contradictions for all of us between what you say and what your actions are.
If you thought it were true, how do you explain your stepped up attacks on my posts?
Uh, Dennis, I believe it’s true which is why I’m telling you to get a new bag of tricks.
No contradiction at all, Dennis.
Whatever, fafaroo. You seem to have an almost addictive nature about you. If I’m serving a purpose, so be it. I don’t mind at all.
Whatever, fafaroo. You seem to have an almost addictive nature about you.
Sigh. “I know you are but what am I?!?!” again, Dennis? Really?
First it was Strowbridge who was obsessed with Denny. Then it was Jaim, now it’s you, Fafaroo.
I’m detecting a pattern.
Actually, first it was Mister ed. And after Jaim it was Newsie. Fafaroo just come on as of late for some odd reason. Obama’s Granny Perma-sleep Program has him all riled up.
Yeah, what I’m saying, Denny, and I’ll type slowly, is maybe it isn’t everybody else with the fixation.
Sorry that got by you.
Obama’s Granny Perma-sleep Program has him all riled up.
And you STILL keep going there.
Oh, fafaroo-oooooo,
Finance Committee drops “death panel” provisions from Senate bill
The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.
The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as “death panels” to encourage euthanasia.…..
Read the whole thing.
Why was this even necessary, Dear fafaroo?
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fafaroo
Run run run run run run run away
OH OH OH
Psycho Killer
Qu’est-ce que c’est?
Birthers, deathers, and truthers, oh my.
Dennis: Oh, fafaroo-oooooo,
Finance Committee drops “death panel” provisions from Senate bill
Let me get this straight.
- The bill contains a section that adds consultations for making end-of-life plans to the list of what is covered.
- Palin and her ilk start baldly lying that this section means there will be what they call “death panels”.
- To curtail this based-completely-on-lies controversy the section is changed to remove consultations from the list of what is covered.
- Dennis trumpets this as proof that the section was in fact setting up “death panels” (else, why would it have to be removed.
Wingnut logic, ladies and gentlemen.
Also not that, when linking to an article headlined
Dennis is compelled to rename it to
Wingnut honesty, ladies and gentlemen.
When in Rome, Sean.
Where’s my buddy, anyway?
When in Rome, Sean.
Classic Dennis. Starts the thread accusing Oliver of double standards and proceeds to engage in his own without apology.
Why was this even necessary, Dear fafaroo?
So people had the chance to make the best decisions about their health care in consultation with a doctor. Apparently, that was so horrific an idea, conservatives, such as yourself, had to lie about it to defeat it.
Sarah Palin, FTW.
Assist to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Eugene Robinson.
Sarah Palin, FTW. Assist to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Eugene Robinson.
Is this the assist you were thinking of Dennis:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html
You are such a hack.
Sarah Palin, FTW.
Lying is one thing, Dennis. Cheering on the triumph of a lie? What would you call it?
Please don’t be sore, fafaroo. Think of it as a learning experience. You’ll be a better man for it.
Meanwhile……
Nate Silver Sees Major Gains for GOP in 2010
It’s fast becoming conventional wisdom, but statistics wonk Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com reiterated that Democrats should be nervous about the 2010 midterm elections. “I don’t think you should feel at all comforted by 2010,” said Silver. The political prognosticator predicted a 20- to 50-seat loss in the House for the Democrats and either a one-seat gain or as much as a six-seat loss for the Democrats in the Senate.
Please don’t be sore, fafaroo. Think of it as a learning experience. You’ll be a better man for it.
Well, we learned you’re a liar and an idiot.
I don’t know how edifying that information is, but, I guess it’s good to know going forward.
Dennis: When in Rome, Sean.
Wingnut moral superiority, ladies and gentlemen.
Seriously, Dennis. Does it bother you at all (does it register with you at all) that your standard is “I’m no worse than they are”?
Dennis: Sarah Palin, FTW.
Lie about something so that seniors don’t get the information they need to make informed decisions about the healthcare they want. Lie so that patients are keep uninformed and, in all likelihood, are not treated as they wish.
Dennis sees this as a win.
Wingnut standards and compassion, ladies and gentlemen.
Sean, you’ve spoken out against the herd mentality here before and I admire you for that. The ‘When in Rome’ remark has to do with the link I gave and my use of ‘death panel provisons’ instead of ‘end of life provisions’ that was the title of the article I linked to. I don’t think it’s dishonest to do that. Linking to a story doesn’t require one to repeat the headline exactly the same why it’s presented at the article. By using my own name for the panels at the end of life consultations for Granny and Aunt Silvia, I say ‘When in Rome, because that sort of thing is done much more often and nefariously by the blogowner. Ergo, When in Rome. I’m a bit surprised to be called out on that by you when it’s common practice around here.
Polling this far out from an election (15 months) is probably a jump ball at best. I think the GOP will pick up seats, but not as many as 20.
I don’t think it’s dishonest to do that.
calling something a “death panel” that is no such thing by any stretch of the imagination is not dishonest?
Even though you linked to A Robinson editorial that called that very practice irresponsible, outlandish and false.
Unbelievable.
Read the whole thing.
Why was this even necessary, Dear fafaroo?
One more time for the reading impaired. Why don’t you ask the Republican who introduced it in the first place?
You are obviously quite content to just be a dick in general, huh?
The ‘When in Rome’ remark has to do with the link I gave and my use of ‘death panel provisions’ instead of ‘end of life provisions’ that was the title of the article I linked to. I don’t think it’s dishonest to do that.
Yes it is, and you’ve been dishonest about it for going on two weeks now.
Duros, if I asked you to produce anything from me at all from two weeks ago, or going on two weeks ago, about the death panel provisions, and you couldn’t, that would make you dishonest.
So please, either produce something that I said from two weeks ago about the death panels that you can show is dishonest, or admit that you are the one being dishonest here.
Pretty sure you’ll do neither.
Dennis: By using my own name for the panels at the end of life consultations for Granny and Aunt Silvia, I say ‘When in Rome, because that sort of thing is done much more often and nefariously by the blogowner. Ergo, When in Rome.
In your original comment you posted a linked “headline” immediately followed by two paragraphs from the linked article, Dennis. I think it reasonable to see the whole thing (headline plus quoted text) as coming from the article. And I responded by calling your changing the “headline” to one which continues to intentionally mis-characterize what the provision was dishonest.
You didn’t disagree with whether it was dishonest or not. Instead you responded with “When in Rome”, which I can’t see as anything other than your tacitly agreeing with my view of your honesty and dismissing it as a non-issue becuase, well, everyone does it, right? Hence my noting that your standard (as you demonstrated again in the comment quoted at the top of this comment) is an unimpressive “I’m no worse than they are”.
Dennis: So please, either produce something that I said from two weeks ago about the death panels that you can show is dishonest
As there never was any provisions for “death panels” or anything even remotely like them, using the phrase at all in reference to the proposed bill is dishonest.
So please, either produce something that I said from two weeks ago about the death panels that you can show is dishonest, or admit that you are the one being dishonest here.
OMFG. You write this in the very thread where you just rationalized changing a headline to insert the words “Death Panel” when no such thing was ever mentioned in the section now cut from the bill.
This on top the quotes that started this all:
The bolded bits in that one are just two of the bald faced lies about section 1233 in the bill that you cited approvingly.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/08/07/swastikas-sighted-at-anti-healthcare-gop-mob/
Dennis, please. Just stop. You’re a liar and an idiot. Deal with it.
Sean, please tell me exactly what the headline “What the Right Has Come To” means in reference to Orly Taitz, who even someone as addicted to following blog chatter, has no clue who the fuck she even is, even now, much less the average person on the right.
Then tell me what the headline “Opposition to Obama/Health Care Reform Racist: Proof” means. Tell me how my opposition to Obama/Health Care Reform makes me a racist, and that how a few letters allegedly from racists proves that those opposed to Obama/Health Care are racist.
I could do this all night long, but the usual reply to questions about the headlines is for me to go pound salt. Well, I’m not going to tell you to pound salt, I’m just going to tell you that #1, I don’t see how the terminology is dishonest, and #2, it’s no worse than what’s done here every day.
I could sit here and go back in the annals here and I’m sure I’d have no problem finding terminolgy you and fafaroo have used that were unkind and not altogether fair and/or not substantiated and verified to be true. Would I be able to find anything from you or fafa that Bush lied to get us into war? That Bush stole the elections of 2000 and 2004. That Cheney is a criminal. Christ, we could do this forever. You and fafaroo need to get off your high horses. I’m not saying the term is the most fair one in the English language nor the most accurate, but in politics, it’s fair. On a blog, that kind of terminology is commonplace. On this blog, it’s the norm. Actually, it’s rather mild as this place goes.
/as addicted to following blog chatter as I am.
fafaroo, you seriously either need a sponsor or you need to check in with him, because I’m turning off the computer to watch Hannity and I’ll be out for the better part of the next two days, and your last post is much too long to dive into and deconstruct right now.
…and your last post is much too long to dive into and deconstruct right now.
It’s you in your own words. my friend. I think it’s obvious for all to see.
Dennis: Sean, please tell me exactly what the headline “What the Right Has Come To” means in reference to Orly Taitz.
…
I could do this all night long,
I’m sure you could, Dennis, but you’ve already quite adequately shown your standard is the morally bankrupt “I’m no worse that they are” justification. No need to continue to provide examples.
No more, thanks. I’m good.
#1, I don’t see how the terminology is dishonest,
No kidding.
and #2, it’s no worse than what’s done here every day
I said you could stop, Dennis.
Denis: and your last post is much too long to dive into and deconstruct right now
And reading hurts.
@Sean,
fafaroo told you you were an ass for defending Sgt. Crowley. You weren’t an ass for that, but you’re being one now. A huge one. And it’s a weak way to try to get back in fafaroo’s good graces for stepping out of the bounds of what a good liberal is supposed to do on liberal blog that relishes in painting all conservatives as racists.
So you’ve got your card back, congratulations.
——
@fafaroo-
Duros said I’ve been saying this for two weeks. I asked him for something for two weeks ago. Every quote you meticulously kept on your ‘Dennis/death panel’ Word file for easy reference came from this past week. Dishonest of you to try to argue for Duros that that was from two weeks ago if that was your point.
Go to bed Dennis. You’ve been owned pretty thoroughly. Now, it’s just embarrassing.
Dennis: I’m turning off the computer to watch Hannity and I’ll be out for the better part of the next two days
And yet, he’s still here.
fafaroo told you you were an ass for defending Sgt. Crowley. You weren’t an ass for that, but you’re being one now. A huge one. And it’s a weak way to try to get back in fafaroo’s good graces for stepping out of the bounds of what a good liberal is supposed to do on liberal blog that relishes in painting all conservatives as racists.
1. Not what I was doing, but we’ll leave that debate behind.
B. You think I’m trying to get back into fafaroo’s good graces? Puh-lease.
First you keep pushing your “I’m no worse than them” standard as an excuse. Then you conjure up a weak-ass excuse for ignoring that that’s what you’re doing when it’s pointed out to you.
@fafaroo-
Duros said I’ve been saying this for two weeks. I asked him for something for two weeks ago. Every quote you meticulously kept on your ‘Dennis/death panel’ Word file for easy reference came from this past week. Dishonest of you to try to argue for Duros that that was from two weeks ago if that was your point.
Oh, the hair, it has been split!
Whatever Dennis said doesn’t count, folks. It wasn’t from TWO weeks ago. Neener neener!
(Gods! Children can be so exhausting.)
Every quote you meticulously kept on your ‘Dennis/death panel’ Word file for easy reference came from this past week. Dishonest of you to try to argue for Duros that that was from two weeks ago if that was your point.
Dennis, you’ll also note that your response to Quaker, when you thought you had only gotten the schedule for the counseling wrong, is also above verbatim. You wrote: “BFD, Quibbie.”
Now Duros is to be branded a liar for the same kind of mistake you made and felt BFD. Same old, same old.
Dennis, I think Jaim pretty much sums it up above. You’re just embarrassing yourself now.
fafaroo, Jaim says that same thing about me, about Jay Tea, Jay, SF, joaquin….pretty much every conservative that posts on here…every single day. And he says the same thing about all Republicans every day.
Your referencing him as a source for when someone has embarrassed themselves……In a word….
Yawn.
And you, Michael Over Here and Quibbie ALL branded me a liar for saying annual vs. every five years. So Duros walks in this conversation from his slumbers and says something like I’ve been saying death panels for the last two weeks, and you back him up. Seems fitting that if I was a liar then so was he, or at least dishonest, and so were you. You on the other hand, expected me to man up and admit that I either lied or didn’t know. Yes, I said BFD, but I also acknowledged the error. Neither you, nor the guy acting like a complete ass, Sean D. Martin, nor Duros have acknowledged your dishonesty. You guys just embarrass yourselves. It’s the same old, same old.
NOt what I said at all. You lied and made that up. What I’ve said for the last week had merit and wasn’t made up and was legitimate enough that Congress decided to drop that language from the bill. What you guys have been whinging about for the last week now looks pretty silly in retrospect. And your only outlet your ability to take your frustrations out on me, which I am perfectly willing to accommodate. It’s been fun, but you guys lost this one. Dems lost this one and are losing this battle and it’s showing up in every single poll, even the prognostications of your wunderkind prodigy, Nate Silver. Not only have you lost, you’re acting like you did for the previous eight years….sore losers. Six months into the presidency and the overtaking of solid majorities in both Houses, and you’re right back in sore loser mode. And it was Sarah Palin who delivered this blow.
And you, Michael Over Here and Quibbie ALL branded me a liar for saying annual vs. every five years.
No, you’re not that dumb, Dennis.
I told you that you repeated a lie AND got the lie wrong. (Haven’t I already explained this?) The one year versus five years was the part you got wrong. That there was going to be a “douchebag government employee” knocking on granny’s door was the lie.
Are you clear on that yet?
And you, Michael Over Here and Quibbie ALL branded me a liar for saying annual vs. every five years.
You see, Dennis, this how you keep embarrassing yourself. They were not calling you a liar because you screwed up “saying annual vs. every five years.” They were calling you a liar because you repeated the lie that the health care reform bill called for killing off old people when they got too expensive.
Which is why this whole episode has proven that you are both a liar and an idiot.
What I’ve said for the last week had merit and wasn’t made up and was legitimate enough that Congress decided to drop that language from the bill.
Oh god. Sean nailed this one. You spread lies about the bill, the lies have the effect of driving chickenshit politicians to withdraw that section of the bill and now you claim that as proof that your lies were true.
Simply unbelievable.
Point to a single one of your statements which I’ve posted above and tell us which ones, exactly, have merit. Which one of the statement I’ve posted above do you still stand behind? Please be specific. I’d love to see you defend any of those comments against the truth. (I’ll also note for the record here that not one of your conservative brethren here has once come to your defense on this point, Dennis. Not one. Why is that, Dennis?)
Otherwise, Dennis, we really don’t need to continue this.
I think it’s pretty plain for anyone who reads this thread that you’re a lying sack of shit and an idiot.
The only thing that is clear, Dear QIB, is that the language in that bill coupled with language from Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel, is not clear at all that there would be no government douchebags knocking on Granny’s door. The reason they removed the unclear language from the bill is to make it clear that that cannot happen now.
Are you clear on that yet?
fafaroo, I’m not a very religious person, I can’t be your sponsor. But I’ll tell you this, my friend, you need a new drug.
Accept defeat. Even if it’s at the hands of Sarah Palin.
I know that it’s one of the steps. Not sure which one, but it’s an important one from which the rest all depend on.
The only thing that is clear, Dear QIB, is that the language in that bill coupled with language from Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel, is not clear at all that there would be no government douchebags knocking on Granny’s door.
Please, Dennis, back anything in this sentence up, anything, with an actual quote, with a link, anything. I dare you.
Dennis: What I’ve said for the last week had merit and wasn’t made up and was legitimate enough that Congress decided to drop that language from the bill.
What you said was that the provision would result in people being counseled to die. Putting aside a minor once-a-year vs once-each-5-years mistake, you
- were calling it the “Put Granny to Perma-sleep Program”.
- said that “As the bill is currently written, at age 65, you’re simply invited to participate in a discussion with a doctor about when the government will stop paying for your health care” and
- said the discussion would be “between you, your doctor, and the yet-to-be-appointed members of the medical review board.”
NONE of which is true. NONE of which is any more true than your claim that what you said has any merit.
The provision wasn’t dropped because it was what you were claiming. It was dropped because people like you were lying about what it was saying.
Dennis:The only thing that is clear, Dear QIB, is that the language in that bill coupled with language from Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel, is not clear at all that there would be no government douchebags knocking on Granny’s door.
OMG, you’re right! There isn’t anything in section 1233, or anywhere in the entire document that says “government douchebags won’t be knocking at your door.”
Other things it doesn’t say:
- “Aliens won’t be harvesting your organs.”
- “Members of Al Queda won’t be given priority in transplant lists.”
- “Patients won’t be forced to watch endless reruns of Dawson’s Creek.”
Clearly if section 1233′s amendment of Section 1861 subsection (s)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) [You did know that was the actual section involved, right? I mean, you did actually read what you've been talking about all this time, right?], clearly if that hadn’t been removed we’d all have to be worrying about Being forced to watch Katie Holmes while Muslim aliens steal our organs!!“
Dennis:The only thing that is clear, Dear QIB, is that the language in that bill coupled with language from Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel, is not clear at all that there would be no government douchebags knocking on Granny’s door.
To actually be clear about the language in the bill:
Section 1233 amends a section which just defines what the term “medical and other health services” means by providing a lengthy list of services and items that fall under the definition.
Section 1233 merely adds “advance care planning consultation” to that list and then explains what that is:
and, yes, the information provided to the elderly “may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.”
That is, to what extent a person wants to continue treatment if they are particularly ill.
There is NOTHING that says this consultation is required. On the contrary, the every five years is how often a person can have this consultation if they want it at all.
In sort, all this section does is provide that people be provided with valuable information so that they can understand what is available and make whatever plans and choices they deem fit for themselves.
That’s it. So, Dennis, show me where in any of that any reasonable interpretation comes up with “douchebags knocking on your door.”
And while you’re at it, can you explain what conservative principle is so opposed to the elderly that that you want take away their freedom to choose, that you want to make them suffer in ignorance?
run Denny run
So please, either produce something that I said from two weeks ago about the death panels that you can show is dishonest, or admit that you are the one being dishonest here.
Dennis, every time you use the words “death panel” you are being dishonest.
The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that indicates to me that you just enjoy being a dick in general.
Oh, the hair, it has been split!
Alas, I am slain!
Maybe it just seems like two weeks.
fafaroo, Jaim says that same thing about me, about Jay Tea, Jay, SF, joaquin….pretty much every conservative that posts on here…every single day. And he says the same thing about all Republicans every day.
And he’s right, too.
NOt what I said at all.
Yes it is.
You lied and made that up. What I’ve said for the last week had merit and wasn’t made up and was legitimate enough that Congress decided to drop that language from the bill.
No it didn’t. They only took it out of the bill -even though it has been law since Terry Schiavo passed away- because WATB like yourself have gotten all in a tizzy about it and lied about it for the past week.
What you guys have been whinging about for the last week now looks pretty silly in retrospect.
Right back atcha, big guy.
Six months into the presidency and the overtaking of solid majorities in both Houses, and …
Denny. It’s August. 8 months. 8. Eight months.
Duros: Denny. It’s August. 8 months. 8. Eight months.
Annual. Once every 5 years.
6 months. 8 months.
You know Dennis has a problem with time. The only thing he can tell the difference between is one week and two. Numbers higher than that….
Section 1233 amends a section which just defines what the term “medical and other health services” means by providing a lengthy list of services and items that fall under the definition.
Section 1233 merely adds “advance care planning consultation” to that list and then explains what that is:
It also amends a section that was introduced in 2003 after the Teri Schaivo debacle wherein the government felt the need to impose it’s will on the private decisions of a family.
In short, all this section does is provide that people be provided with valuable information so that they can understand what is available and make whatever plans and choices they deem fit for themselves.
And requires Medicare to pay for the doctor-patient consultation if they want it.
But now they won’t have to because it’s been taken out of the bill, thereby costing old people money out of pocket.
Thanks, Cut-n-Run Sarah!
can you explain what conservative principle is so opposed to the elderly that that you want take away their freedom to choose, that you want to make them suffer in ignorance?
Well, hell, that’s easy. It makes them easier to manipulate.
The only thing that is clear, Dear QIB, is that the language in that bill coupled with language from Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel, is not clear at all that there would be no government douchebags knocking on Granny’s door. The reason they removed the unclear language from the bill is to make it clear that that cannot happen now.
The language in the bill coupled with language from Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel also leave open the possibility that we’ll see lemonade rain and marshmallow rainbows.
The suggestion that any of this is actually in the bill is a lie.
Quaker iaB: The language in the bill coupled with language from Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel also leave open the possibility that we’ll see lemonade rain and marshmallow rainbows.
I’m tellin’ ya. Muslim Scientologist aliens will be taking your organs. It’s not said in the bill that they won’t!.